More cracks in the AI boom... Late-stage tells... Whitney Tilson: AI has reached a 'tipping point'... OpenAI looks like WeWork... A weak day for tech... Rotation is afoot... Proceed with caution... Mailbag: Alan Gula on silver 'manipulation'...
All is not well in 'AI land'...
Yesterday, we touched on the increased financing needs at Oracle (ORCL) and the rise of newly postponed data-center construction projects.
Today, we want to discuss another signal about the state of the AI boom: CEO behavior and unmet promises.
Back in November, we noted how some of the leaders of the AI boom are getting "thin skin" regarding simple questions about the business model for AI. As we explained, that could be a signal to be wary about all the promises you hear in the AI space.
Over the past 24 hours or so, we've seen more examples of infighting and drama in the AI ecosystem...
Yesterday, global news service Reuters reported that OpenAI is unhappy with the performance of its chips from Nvidia (NVDA) and has begun looking for alternatives from competitors.
That story came after a separate report from the Wall Street Journal on Friday that Nvidia would not be committing in full to a previously announced $100 billion investment in OpenAI. The ChatGPT parent hopes to raise potentially $100 billion in equity from other partners at a $750 billion valuation while projecting billions of dollars in losses for the year.
The Journal noted that Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang has privately emphasized to others in the industry that the original deal with OpenAI was "nonbinding" and not finalized, meaning Nvidia can invest less if it wants.
If all this doesn't sound good to you, you're right.
The leaders close ranks...
Both leading men involved in the story and the AI race, Huang and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, were quick to shut down these headlines...
In a post on X, Altman said OpenAI loves working with Nvidia, and the company "makes the best AI chips in the world." He added that the recent headlines were "insanity."
Meanwhile, Huang also denied the Journal's report, adding that Nvidia will "absolutely be involved" in the current OpenAI funding round.
In a move that looked like AI leaders closing ranks, even Oracle got in on the action – posting that any changes to Nvidia and OpenAI funding agreements have "zero impact" on Oracle's $300 billion partnership with OpenAI.
And Oracle is "highly confident" that OpenAI can meet its funding obligations.
It serves all involved to say things like this, even if there is truth to the stories they are denying.
It's no secret that OpenAI is at the center of the AI ecosystem...
OpenAI has investments from Nvidia, Advanced Micro Devices (AMD), and Microsoft (MSFT). It turns their money into orders for Nvidia and AMD chips, as well as Microsoft's cloud computing.
For now, that funding has fueled OpenAI's growth – with revenue more than tripling in 2025 to $20 billion.
But one thing Huang said indicates that the investment has a limit. In the same denial of the Journal's report, Huang hedged. In an awkward exchange yesterday, a reporter repeatedly asked about Nvidia honoring the full commitment, and this was Huang's response...
We never said we were going to invest $100 billion in one round. There was never a commitment. They invited us to invest up to $100 billion... but we will invest one step at a time... We will consider each round one at a time...
That doesn't exactly sound like a company ready to pledge the full $100 billion.
The backing of some of the biggest names in AI has helped OpenAI become a poster child for the trend. But it can also be a weakness...
In the October 20 edition of his free daily e-letter, our colleague and Stansberry's Investment Advisory editor Whitney Tilson shared a chart showing just how intertwined the AI ecosystem has become, with key players in the supply chain making deals with each other...
Today, Whitney shared his take on the Journal story from Friday, these latest developments in AI, and the even bigger web of "deals" that has developed over the past few months. He wrote...
These circular relationships can keep a company like OpenAI going for a long time – but can collapse quickly. And I think we've reached a tipping point.
Whitney says OpenAI reminds him of WeWork...
And, for anyone familiar, WeWork is not the company anyone wants to be compared with.
The shared-workspace provider had a similarly unproven business model, had a mission to "elevate the world's consciousness," peaked at a $47 billion valuation in 2019, went public in 2021 to raise capital after earlier funding fell through, and filed for bankruptcy by 2023.
OpenAI "sounds eerily similar," Whitney says. He ticked off several reasons, like the "much-too-young, inexperienced, weird yet charismatic CEO with a cult-like following" that WeWork had. Then there was the "ridiculous valuation" and "to top it all off, management had a plan to bail out early investors by foisting this turd on the public via an IPO."
Reports emerged last week that OpenAI is planning a fourth-quarter IPO this year.
Any sort of pullback on funding for OpenAI would leave a massive hole in the AI ecosystem.
The company won't be cash-flow positive until at least 2029. And in the meantime, it could burn through $115 billion in cash. So it relies on raising funds in the private market to fuel its growth.
If its investors start tightening their purse strings, OpenAI won't be able to meet the more than $1 trillion in spending that it has pledged.
The fallout could be swift...
Companies have already announced OpenAI partnerships and marked those pledges as revenue coming down the pipeline. A turnaround on these pledges could sink all the buzz that AI companies have enjoyed in the past few years.
With the amount of money on the line, it's no surprise that we're seeing some tension from AI executives...
As Whitney wrote in November, when CEOs start to lash out – whether it be at reporters, investors, or each other – it's "one of the best 'tells' of a stock about to collapse."
We're not there yet. We're willing to bet that plenty of investors still want a piece of OpenAI's funding round. But the good times won't last forever. The short fuses from AI execs are a sign that all is not well in the AI world.
You can find Whitney's full analysis in his daily newsletter here, including some of the stocks he thinks will be the winners amid an AI bubble bursting.
Today, appropriately, we saw some weakness in tech stocks...
The tech sector of the S&P 500 was down more than 2% today, dragging down the benchmark index, which lost nearly 1%. The tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite Index lost 1.5%. But other sectors fared much better.
Energy stocks gained about 3%, materials were up 2%, and consumer staples gained 1.6%. Walmart (WMT) eclipsed a $1 trillion market cap for the first time, becoming the 11th publicly traded U.S. company (and 14th globally) to hit the milestone.
It looks like "rotation" is afoot in U.S. stocks.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing and can be a sign of a bull market getting another wind...
But a shift in sentiment can come with some pain for investors in the former leaders. Nvidia lost almost 3% today. Microsoft (MSFT) is suddenly now in a bear market of its own, down 25% from its previous high in late October 2025. Proceed with caution.
52-week highs (as of 2/2/26): Atmus Filtration Technologies (ATMU), Alpha Architect 1-3 Month Box Fund (BOXX), Brady (BRC), British American Tobacco (BTI), Ciena (CIEN), CME Group (CME), Pacer U.S. Cash Cows 100 Fund (COWZ), Cisco Systems (CSCO), DXP Enterprises (DXPE), EnerSys (ENS), Comfort Systems USA (FIX), GE Vernova (GEV), Gilead Sciences (GILD), Alphabet (GOOGL), Helmerich & Payne (HP), Coca-Cola (KO), Lumentum (LITE), Lockheed Martin (LMT), Mueller Industries (MLI), Merck (MRK), New York Times (NYT), Invesco Oil & Gas Services Fund (PXJ), Ryder System (R), Roche (RHHBY), RenaissanceRe (RNR), State Street SPDR Portfolio S&P 500 Value Fund (SPYV), State Street Industrial Select Sector SPDR Fund (XLI), and State Street Consumer Staples Select Sector SPDR Fund (XLP).
In today's mailbag, some feedback on silver's recent plunge... Do you have a comment or question? As always, e-mail us at feedback@stansberryresearch.com.
"Surprised there was nothing to say about the evident manipulation in the markets Friday and into the weekend." – Subscriber Bernie M.
"If you study the COMEX reports it's clear that this was a futures derivative market phenomenon, and the fundamentals particularly for silver, have not changed. It was an intentional price manipulation by the banks that were caught short, with no way out... Why don't you all examine and write to this?" – Subscriber Bruce C.
Corey McLaughlin comment: Thanks for the notes. I would point you toward an analysis that Stansberry Research senior analyst Alan Gula published just before silver crashed by 25%-plus on Friday. He explored the idea of price manipulation in precious metals...
In his report, Alan gets into the history of the Hunt brothers silver squeeze, recent "margin hikes" in the Commodity Exchange ("COMEX"), the intricacies of the "paper" silver market, and more. But you might be surprised by his conclusion and what he really thinks is going on with silver's trading lately instead.
I would encourage anyone to read Alan's entire piece here.
All the best,
Corey McLaughlin and Nick Koziol
Baltimore, Maryland
February 3, 2026
